What do you dislike about 1E?

[Grazzt]

3E has plenty of style changes that have nothing to do with the d20 mechanic. There's no reason that you break the d20 system by making halflings hobbit-like (as opposed to kender), making the assassin a character class in it's own right, restoring monster power (demons, for example, are way more powerful in 3E relative to character level), etc.

There are plenty of ways to change 3E to get a 1E feel without changing the core mechanics of 3E (which is how I read "efficiency" in your post).

Agreed- and IMC we have done just that. Using the 3e/3.5 rules with a definite 1e feel to it all (but that is a thread for another day I guess).

So- what I didnt like about 1E (to keep this on topic):

- Bards. Too much of a pain in the ass to play/become a bard. Actually, in all my years of gaming (started in 81/82 with D&D) I think I only ever saw ONE PERSON play a bard.

- Psionics. Just didnt like them. Even Gygax has said he wished he hadnt included them...and I tend to agree.

- Weapon speeds. I understand what was trying to be accomplished (a dagger would probably strike faster than a longsword), but it really didnt work well. Sure, a dagger may strike faster than a longsword, but you have to get past the longsword first to strike

That's really it. I am sure there might be other stuff if I thought hard about it, but those three come to mind. The other stuff Ive seen mentioned (level limits for demi-humans for example) we simply changed or ignored completely. Wasn't really all that hard to do actually.

The multitude of tables and charts, while annoying at times, were what we had. Its easy now to look back and say it was a pain in the ass, but back then most people I know or gamed with didnt really feel that way...it was what it was...and peeps used them and dealt with it.

Could 1E have been better? Probably. Were the rules scattered and jumbled across various books? Yes...but the same can be said for 2E and now 3E/3.5 as well. Just how the system itself progresses. And once 4E comes out all the rules will be in one or two books...until the expansion books come out. Then they will be scattered again. Then we wait for 5E.

As for the edition wars crap...who cares. Play what you like. Play what makes you the happiest. Comparing editions is just about like comparing apples to oranges. I mean, peeps can say "The art is much better in 3e." "The layout is much better." and so on. Well, I would hope it would be....1E came out like 30 years ago and technology has expanded and grown by leaps and bounds making production values and whatnot 1000x better.

I agree with what was said above about 3e/3.5 being a much more complex game (in the sense that there are a ton of rules that try to cover every situation)...BUT...Ive never stopped a game to look up a rule. I make a judgement call on the spot and look it up after the game (just like we did in 1E). If I made a mistake...oops. It happens. Next time the same situation arises perhaps I'll remember the rule.

So- while 3e/3.5 is geared (or seems to be) more toward the players than the DM, it doesnt mean the DM has to take what the players give him. He is still the final judge when it comes to the rules and his campaign. House rules have existed since D&D...and I am sure they will continue to do so.

 

[SWBaxter]

So this brings me to my next question, why on gods green earth is 3.5 so popular if it is such a pain to DM?

I can only speak for myself, but for me 3.5 is about a zillion times easier to DM, primarily because the rules are better organized and operate in a more consistent manner. This means that it's a lot easier to make a judgement call, generally more likely that judgement call will be consistent with the rules, and infinitely more likely that I'll remember what I did last time when the same situation crops up later.

Easy example: a Ranger wants to sneak up on a sentry, without having any appropriate skill. I'm pretty sure that if I asked 100 DMs how to do this in 3.5, I'd get pretty close to 100 answers of "d20 + Dex mod - armour mod vs. DC", without any of them looking at their books. In AD&D, I'd get a whole bunch of different answers, the ones I personally have seen (and given) range from "you can't do that, it's a Thief class ability" to "roll percentile dice as a thief X levels lower" to "roll a d20 (or some number of d6, or whatever) under your Dex" to "Uh I don't remember if you can... wait, wasn't there a Dragon article that gave Rangers thief abilities in the woods? ... ah, screw it, you sneak up on him." And when it happens again 3 months later, there's no guarantee the answer will be the same. Consistency of basic game mechanics makes a game tons easier to run.

 

[Grazzt]

I wish it were so simple. As DM I have had HOURS long arguements with players who learned on 3E and just will not accept Rule 0, the Dm is always right.
Jason

I've never run into this problem...and won't either. Just like Psion said above "The answer now is, as it ever was, 'the DM said so.'"

 

[Kanegrundar]

Correct. They are guidelines.

Quoted for truth.

Kane

 

[Gentlegamer]

Sneaking for a ranger is handled under his improved chance to surprise unaware opponents.

 

[Gentlegamer]

3E has plenty of style changes that have nothing to do with the d20 mechanic.

Such as the "dungeonpunk" artwork.

 

[Kanegrundar]

As DM I have had HOURS long arguements with players who learned on 3E and just will not accept Rule 0, the Dm is always right.

I must be lucky. I have never ran into this attitude that 3E detractors claim to be the mentality that 3E breeds. It's like playing in Rifts, you pic and choose what books to use. If a player wants to play something from a banned book, either tell him no or come to a compromise. Either way, the DM makes the call. If the players can't handle that, then they can hit the road and come back when they want to play like adults.

Kane

 

[teitan]

Wow! I knew 1E had some problems, but dude, you really bring it all out into the open. So the question begs, how did such a game become so popular? diaglo? Bullure?



Scott

The game became popular because it was the first of its kind and its modularity assured its continued success even to to today. The most successful games on the market are the most modular, adaptable, games like Storyteller, D&D and GURPS while other games tend to dwindle away and disappear these systems have been adapted, reinterpretted and represented. Why D&D has DOMINATED those is that even in the D&D game itself it says to adapt the game to your style while GURPS and Storyteller etc. have a set style of play in mind and the system works best in that flavour, D&D, with all its flaws, just works.

Jason

 

[gizmo33]

I wish it were so simple. As DM I have had HOURS long arguements with players who learned on 3E and just will not accept Rule 0, the Dm is always right. have always been a fair DM but when I say no, you can not screw over your other party members and they argue with me over it... ugh. I don't care if you are "playing your character".

Wow - you're using Rule 0 to tell people how to play their characters? I don't think the problems that you have with that have to do with the edition that people play.

 

[gizmo33]

Such as the "dungeonpunk" artwork.

True, but as much as I don't like the artwork, it's much easier to ignore than some of the more "rules based" design decisions. The "favored class" chosen for a particular demi-human, for instance, has a bearing on the way that demi-human is represented in the campaign world - it's much easier to remove an elf's mohawk than change his stats.